Debate Now Okay, let's talk about ad hominem.

[RKMBrown]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

The meat of my point exactly, medium well, as is conservative.

They should not be ad homs to smear people. To me far right wing reactionary is accurate, but I gather some believe it is an ad hom phrase.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

Classical liberals who could be very conservative, even reactionary, on matters of race, slavery, the working man, and women.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

See now you are talking about "classical liberals." Classical liberal views like those of the the founders are also dirty words in most modern liberal circles.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the key to identifying ad hom... is the relevancy of the attack. Attack a view based on something that is relevant to the topic and it's not ad hom. E.g. if I say I'm pro gay marriage because ___ and you come back with libtards like you are idiots. That would be an ad hom.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

Classical liberals who could be very conservative, even reactionary, on matters of race, slavery, the working man, and women.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

Classical liberals who could be very conservative, even reactionary, on matters of race, slavery, the working man, and women.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

See now you are talking about "classical liberals." Classical liberal views like those of the the founders are also dirty words in most modern liberal circles.

"Classical liberal" is a bulllshit term used to pry the word Liberal away from its true meaning for the purpose of revising it. As that is dishonest, let's not enable it.

And this is offtopic here anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the key to identifying ad hom... is the relevancy of the attack. Attack a view based on something that is relevant to the topic and it's not ad hom. E.g. if I say I'm pro gay marriage because ___ and you come back with libtards like you are idiots. That would be an ad hom.

Yes but with minor qualifications. "Libtards like you are idiots" is mostly direct personal insult and certainly is intended that way. What makes it also ad hominem is the 'Libtard" part that alludes to to your motive coming from a 'liberal'mindset--it describes something of your character in the mind of the one insulting you. The 'idiot' part is a bit harder to sort out. While it also could be ad hom it is more of a statement of what a person is--something along the line of "Your post says you are a Democrat" or "Your opinion makes you an asshole" or something charming like that which is a different thing than pure ad hominem. "Libtard" definitely ad hom in that context. "Idiot" is in a more gray area I think.

However, for the purpose of message boarding, if I was to report a post like that it would be reported ad ad hom and personally insulting--definitely it is turning the focus onto the person rather than the statement the person made. And the more I type here the more I am convincing myself maybe it is more clearly ad hom. . . .LOL. Some of these so overlap other kinds of logical no no's they are hard to sort out.

 

[Foxfyre]

And let's stay on topic up there boys. The topic is not classical liberalism or conservatism or socialism or the Founding Fathers unless you use them as illustrations for discussion of ad hominem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK I see that. I will delete above.

 

[Pogo]

OK I see that. I will delete above.

Me too.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the key to identifying ad hom... is the relevancy of the attack. Attack a view based on something that is relevant to the topic and it's not ad hom. E.g. if I say I'm pro gay marriage because ___ and you come back with libtards like you are idiots. That would be an ad hom.

Yes but with minor qualifications. "Libtards like you are idiots" is mostly direct personal insult and certainly is intended that way. What makes it also ad hominem is the 'Libtard" part that alludes to to your motive coming from a 'liberal'mindset--it describes something of your character in the mind of the one insulting you. The 'idiot' part is a bit harder to sort out. While it also could be ad hom it is more of a statement of what a person is--something along the line of "Your post says you are a Democrat" or "Your opinion makes you an asshole" or something charming like that which is a different thing than pure ad hominem. "Libtard" definitely ad hom in that context. "Idiot" is in a more gray area I think.

However, for the purpose of message boarding, if I was to report a post like that it would be reported ad ad hom and personally insulting--definitely it is turning the focus onto the person rather than the statement the person made. And the more I type here the more I am convincing myself maybe it is more clearly ad hom. . . .LOL. Some of these so overlap other kinds of logical no no's they are hard to sort out.

Well... IMO whether or not the statement "Libtards like you are idiots" is ad hom or not... depends on the context of the clause.

For example, if we are talking about relative mental acuity of various political groups then the terms libtard and idiots is not ad hom, nor an insult, but rather two different, and possibly accurate, descriptions.

If however we are talking about baking cakes for two fine looking women, and someone blurts out "Libtards like you are idiots" then that's ad hom.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, an ad hom is to smear a person's character or reputation or probative value for truth telling.

Saying some one is a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Libertarian, a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican as identification is not ad hom

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

Classical liberals who could be very conservative, even reactionary, on matters of race, slavery, the working man, and women.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What should be obvious to people is that our sensitivity towards ad homs can depend upon the degree towards which we invest our egos in political identification. If we see politics as identity and the political label is attacked, we feel attacked. The more rigid and doctrinaire our views, the less latitude we give others towards diverging from them, and the more we see ourselves in terms of political tribe, the quicker we are to attack the other tribe.

There are precious few people in this forum who approach politics from the standpoint of understanding the actual philosophies at all, as most operate from a very conformist perspective according to the group towards which they feel an affinity. Ideas are seldom challenged when they arise from one's own and automatically challenged when they arise from the other, and this has resulted in a large number of sacred cows that are never challenged by those who profer them.

What is a "libtard", anyway? Who are the actual liberals in his forum? Are the liberals actually retarded, or is the person indulging in the statement only revealing their own level of intelligence? What, if anything, is the relationship between political identification and intelligence?

When people simplify the world to binary, and see little beyond some monumental struggle between "liberal" and "conservative" complete with an entire panoply of positions that are assumed automatically, are they acting as an intelligent observer of the human condition or are they simply acting as a warrior? I see many warriors in this forum. I see few who understand the underpinnings of the political philosophy they claim to represent.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well to be fair, liberal is a curse word in some parts.

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

Classical liberals who could be very conservative, even reactionary, on matters of race, slavery, the working man, and women.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

 

[RKMBrown]

What should be obvious to people is that our sensitivity towards ad homs can depend upon the degree towards which we invest our egos in political identification. If we see politics as identity and the political label is attacked, we feel attacked. The more rigid and doctrinaire our views, the less latitude we give others towards diverging from them, and the more we see ourselves in terms of political tribe, the quicker we are to attack the other tribe.

There are precious few people in this forum who approach politics from the standpoint of understanding the actual philosophies at all, as most operate from a very conformist perspective according to the group towards which they feel an affinity. Ideas are seldom challenged when they arise from one's own and automatically challenged when they arise from the other, and this has resulted in a large number of sacred cows that are never challenged by those who profer them.

What is a "libtard", anyway? Who are the actual liberals in his forum? Are the liberals actually retarded, or is the person indulging in the statement only revealing their own level of intelligence? What, if anything, is the relationship between political identification and intelligence?

When people simplify the world to binary, and see little beyond some monumental struggle between "liberal" and "conservative" complete with an entire panoply of positions that are assumed automatically, are they acting as an intelligent observer of the human condition or are they simply acting as a warrior? I see many warriors in this forum. I see few who understand the underpinnings of the political philosophy they claim to represent.

.

Intelligent observer of the human condition or warrior. Talk about binary While I agree to your point that "some" lean to one or the other... many others actively choose to simplify or not on a post by post basis. I find hope in this human condition.

 

[Foxfyre]

What should be obvious to people is that our sensitivity towards ad homs can depend upon the degree towards which we invest our egos in political identification. If we see politics as identity and the political label is attacked, we feel attacked. The more rigid and doctrinaire our views, the less latitude we give others towards diverging from them, and the more we see ourselves in terms of political tribe, the quicker we are to attack the other tribe.

There are precious few people in this forum who approach politics from the standpoint of understanding the actual philosophies at all, as most operate from a very conformist perspective according to the group towards which they feel an affinity. Ideas are seldom challenged when they arise from one's own and automatically challenged when they arise from the other, and this has resulted in a large number of sacred cows that are never challenged by those who profer them.

What is a "libtard", anyway? Who are the actual liberals in his forum? Are the liberals actually retarded, or is the person indulging in the statement only revealing their own level of intelligence? What, if anything, is the relationship between political identification and intelligence?

When people simplify the world to binary, and see little beyond some monumental struggle between "liberal" and "conservative" complete with an entire panoply of positions that are assumed automatically, are they acting as an intelligent observer of the human condition or are they simply acting as a warrior? I see many warriors in this forum. I see few who understand the underpinnings of the political philosophy they claim to represent.

.

But again, whether or not people accurately define or represent their or others' political philosophy or the various descriptive terms they use is not the subject of this discussion. This discussion is about expressing that philosophy or using those terms in an ad hominem way and how to avoid that for those who wish to do so.

You are correct that personal egos do get caught up in that in a major way, even when it comes to a discussion of ad hominem itself. And discussion of a topic seems nigh on impossible for some--they will invariably insist on a different topic, a different definition, etc.

My purpose here was to offer an opportunity to sort out and learn what ad hominem is and what it is not as there is a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of that. I taught this stuff for a very long and am very conscious of all the nuances and pitfalls, but nevertheless I too get tripped up on it every now and then and still run into those gray areas that I have to think through to sort out. I've gotten rusty over time and a mini refresher course and some practice has been good for me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

Classical liberals who could be very conservative, even reactionary, on matters of race, slavery, the working man, and women.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Again off topic. Let's keep the train on the track. So in the interest of doing that, let's use your post as an example to discuss:

Whether or not your statement is true here, IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem.

How could you phrase it so you can make your point without it being ad hominem?

I suggest that you could say: "Naw, I just think you just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." This moves it out of ad hominem. The other person may still see it as insulting, but you own and take responsibility for your own opinion instead of assigning a personal characteristic to him. The difference is subtle but would be obvious to a debate judge.

And say "I think some don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Some folks get locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and they just don't understand why." This removes it from ad hominem because there is no inference of the mindset or character of the other person. Again the person may take it personally and accuse you of attacking him personally, but you can honestly say that the statement did not reference him specifically and if he takes it personally that is up to him.